> From: Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The Fool wrote: > >The article which I posted contained NO incorrect information. > > So your article on a study which says humans have little or no ability to
Which is an abstract of an article by a respected scientist who is published this very week in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ on pheromones, the story being picked up by discovery: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030616/pheromone.html newscientist: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993835 sciencedaily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030617080526.htm and others: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/16/1055615730302.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/16/1055615730732.html http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/6/17/51351/5858 http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/17/pheromones030617 > detect pheromones is better than my article on a study which contradicts > that, because in your scientifically informed opinion, the results from the > study I quoted are a "statistical bump," even though they were not That's the thing about science, it's falsifiable. It's never a perfect exact model of the world, it undergoes testing, refinement, more testing. Correlation is not causation. It's very difficult to be sure that you have identified all possible factors in a result, especially when that result is as subjective as this one is. There very well could have been some unseen factors playing a part in this study. That's why we do more studies, more research. Why we have peers do more studies to try and isolate all possible factors through a series of refinement. This very well could have been a statistical anomaly, or not. It has been shown that some but not all women will have their menstrual cycles converge when living together. The key factor here is _not All_. Therefore I am skeptical that all women would in fact respond in any way to male sweat. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v401/n6750 /abs/401232a0_fs.html&_UserReference=C0A804ED46524B0DB61EC6F039873EF3B427 Another thing to consider is the fact that no studies done have shown any male response to pheromones whatsoever. And the key thing about sexual selection among humans is that human females compete to attract males. But it has not been shown in any way that males respond to any pheromone signal from females, they only respond to visual cues like the color of hair, lips, eyes, skin, and shape of breasts, buttocks, etc. The pheromonal system has very effectively been replaced by a very much superior visual cue system. " To test their idea, Zhang's team zeroed in on a human gene called TRP2, which makes an ion channel that is unique to the pheromone signaling pathway. They found that in humans and Old World primates, this gene suffered a mutation just over 23 million years ago that rendered it dysfunctional. But because we could use color vision for mating, it didn't hurt us. In turn, the pheromone receptor genes that rely on this ion channel fell into disuse, and in a random fashion, mutated to a dysfunctional state because they haven't experienced any pressure from natural selection. Zhang calls this process "evolutionary deterioration." " http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030617080526.htm " The researchers traced a mutation in a gene called TRP2 that is needed for the pheromone pathway. In humans, it appears TRP2 has so many errors that it became inactive, or a so-called pseudogene. It is also a pseudogene in Old World apes, such as the chimpanzee and gorilla. In New World monkeys like the tamarin and squirrel monkey, TRP2 works. " http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/17/pheromones030617 > considered a statistical bump by the editorial board of the journal in which > the study was published? It is a study. Probably a very good study. Still. It needs more independent verification before anyone should consider it 'fact'. much like this study: " Prof. Plomin and his colleagues were the first to identify a suspect. In 1998, they reported that one form of a gene called insulin-like growth factor-2 receptor was present in 32 percent of children with high IQs, but in 16 percent of kids with average IQs. It was also especially frequent in people with exceptional math or verbal talents. Experiments in other labs had shown the gene is active in regions of the brain devoted to learning and memory. But when the King's team tried to replicate its finding, it failed: The "smart" gene showed up in 19 percent of high-IQ children ... and 24 percent of those with average IQ. " http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/06/20/fi nancial0857EDT0029.DTL > > I'll trust the scientific opinion of the editorial board of the Journal of > Biology and Reproduction over your scientific opinion in this case. I think > they've probably earned that trust more than you. So be it. > I have no interest in pursuing this discussion further. Well you can attack scientists and the scientific method all you want. It's a free country after all. Most right wing religious nuts attack science... _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
